The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

In his 1850 Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding “federal” laws would be necessary. Consequently, Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the “concurrent majority”). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), statesâ€™ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms â€“ including the right of secession â€“ existed.

Without these political mechanisms the forces of nationalism, mercantilism, and political plunder would relentlessly reshape the Constitution with their rhetoric, and their efforts would eventually overwhelm the strict constructionists. At that point the Constitution would become a dead letter.

In his 2006 book, The Constitution in Exile, Judge Andrew Napolitano explains in very clear language just how prescient Calhoun was. The biggest special-interest group of all â€“ the federal government itself â€“ has “seized power by rewriting the supreme law of the land,” as Judge Napolitano says in the subtitle to his book. Just as Calhoun predicted. The purpose of the book, says the judge, is to tell “the unhappy story of liberty lost, federalism trampled, and Big Government run amok.”

How did we get to the point, he asks, of where the “federal” (i.e., central) government defines for us the drinking age for alcohol, how much wheat farmers can grow, the ability of terminally ill cancer patients to medicate themselves with marijuana, the amount of sugar that can be used in ketchup, and even the size of toilets?

Unlike the neocons who surround Judge Napolitano in his appearances on the FOX News Channel, he understands that freedom comes “from God and is inherent to our humanity . . .” “Freedom” is not derived from military adventurism under the guise of phony humanitarianism, as the David Horowitz/William Kristol/Rush Limbaugh/ crowd would have us believe. (For an amusing rendition of this fascistic theory take a look at the web site of the “David Horowitz Freedom Center”).

Judge Napolitano is one libertarian who is not intimidated by the forces of political correctness, a defining feature of so many “beltway libertarians.” Consequently, he is not afraid to recognize the truth about the American founding: “The states were sovereign entities that the Continental Congress could not directly control. Essentially, there was no binding central government” Even better, “Congress could not tax the people of the United states (Ah, the good old days!)” Advocates of centralized governmental power have long falsely associated statements about statesâ€™ rights with racism and slavery, which has intimidated most beltway libertarians, but not Judge Napolitano.

After a lucid explanation of each section of the Constitution the judge discusses how the nationalist/mercantilist coalition, led by Alexander Hamilton and his accomplice Judge John Marshall, conspired to effectively rewrite (and undermine) the Constitution almost as soon as he ink was dry on the original copy. The “Federalists” (who would eventually morph into the Whigs, and then the Republicans) never accepted their defeat in the Constitutional convention (which created a federal, not a national government).

Nor did they accept Jeffersonâ€™s election as president. Thus, two days before his term ended the Federalist President John Adams appointed dozens of “midnight federal judges” and appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court on March 3, 1801, one day before he would leave office. Marshall “spent the remainder of his career finding clearly disingenuous, historically inaccurate, and highly questionable justifications for ruling that federal power is not limited,” writes Judge Napolitano.

In his most famous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the constitutionality of both statutory law and the behavior of the executive branch. “[T]his means that the Supreme Court granted itself the authority to declare the will of the people . . . null and void . . .” This of course has caused endless mischief and tyranny.

This principle of a monopoly in reviewing constitutionality was not widely accepted, however, until after Lincolnâ€™s war of 1861â€“1865 destroyed state sovereignty once and for all. Until that point, many Americans believed that the citizens of the states, as well as the president and Congress, should have equally legitimate claims on interpreting the Constitution. As President Andrew Jackson famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it if he can.”

Marshall and his fellow Federalists, such as Justice Story, also paved the way for the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This clause only grants “supremacy” to the central government on the seventeen specific functions of the central government that are delineated in Article I, Section 8, period, many of which have to do with waging war and foreign policy. This power has been grossly abused by implying that the central government is somehow “supreme” in anything and everything vis-Ã -vis the citizens of the states. This of course is a perfect recipe for tyranny.

Judge Napolitano recognized that it was Federalists like Joseph Story and John Marshall, and later Whig politicians like Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, who would tell The Big Lie that the Constitution was ratified by “the whole people” and not as it actually was â€“ by the citizens of the sovereign states, with their representatives assembled in state conventions. “That was both historically incorrect and intellectually dishonest,” says Judge Napolitano.

According to this false view of the American founding the central government was always the master, not the servant, of the people. This, too, is a perfect recipe for tyranny that has been made by tyrants everywhere (Hitler even invoked this argument in Mein Kampf to make his case for destroying state sovereignty in Germany).

In McCulloch vs. Maryland Marshall enshrined into law Hamiltonâ€™s dangerous (to liberty) notion that there were supposedly unlimitedÂ “implied powers” in the Constitution. He did this in order to justify a central bank, which is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution under actual powers. This created the situation where the powers of the central government were only to be limited by the imaginations of federal politicians. Judge Napolitano proceeds to describe myriad examples of this, from the PATRIOT Act (“a lawless law because it allows the federal government to obtain information without a warrant, thus violating the Fourth Amendment”) to census snooping, television regulation, and hundreds of other major and minor power grabs.

By far the most brilliant chapter of The Constitution in Exile is chapter four, entitled “Dishonest Abe: The Lincoln You Didnâ€™t Know.” Here the judge recounts how, “In order to increase his federalist vision of centralized power, â€˜Honestâ€™ Abe misled the nation into an unnecessary war.” And, “with very little regard for honesty, Lincoln increased federal power and assaulted the Constitution. His actions were unconstitutional, and he knew it.” Moreover, “Lincolnâ€™s view was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized statesâ€™ rights above those of the Union.”

He goes on to present chapter and verse of the abuse of the constitution and the consolidation of political power in Washington that took place during and after the Lincoln regime. “Lincoln increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the rights of the states and civil liberties. This opened the door to more unconstitutional acts by the government in the 1900s through to today.” The judge also recognizes that all other countries in the world ended slavery peacefully, which could have happened in the U.S had the slaves not simply been used as political pawns by the neo-federalist Republican Party to achieve its main goal, the consolidation of political power in Washington and the destruction of citizen sovereignty. “The next time you see Lincolnâ€™s portrait on a five-dollar bill,” writes Judge Napolitano, “remember how many civil liberties he took away from you!”

Thanks to the final victory of the Federalist/Whig/Republican cabal continued to enhance governmental power and diminish liberty by perverting the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in the post-war years in ways quite familiar to many readers of this website. By the late nineteenth century, the monopolistic federal judiciary began attacking capitalism in the name of regulation that supposedly served “the common good.” The judge is wise enough to understand that capitalism itself serves the common good, and that regulation more often than not is the result of special-interest politics. These attacks intensified during the New Deal, which “codified socialism, evaded the Constitution, disregarded the Natural Law, and put individualism on the path to extinction.”

And hereâ€™s a shocker: “Between 1937 and 1995, not a single federal law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Not one piece of legislation was seen as exceeding the scope of Congressâ€™s commerce power.” (Emphasis added). So much for the phony argument that “judicial review” by the federal courts acts to protect liberty. Instead, it does the opposite: It expands the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty. This sad story is told over the course of several of the latter chapters of The Constitution in Exile.

The back cover of Judge Napolitanoâ€™s book has blurbs from such high profile neocons as Bill Oâ€™Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh (as well as civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and liberal commentator Alan Colmes). I doubt that the neocons on this list ever read the book, however. In a chapter entitled “After 9/11″ the judge writes that “The PATRIOT Act and its progeny are the most abominable, unconstitutional governmental assaults on personal freedom since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798″ and “the most unpatriotic of the things that the Bush administration and this [Republican controlled] Congress could have visited upon us.” (These “most unpatriotic of things” are what Oâ€™Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours defending on their respective television and radio shows.)

And it is indeed unpatriotic and traitorous to the Constitution to support current policy, which is that “federal agents and local police can write their own search warrants, serve them on American financial institutions without the intervention of a judge, and obtain information about you without you even knowing it!” The PATRIOT Act “has allowed the government to circumvent completely the Fourth Amendment” and “makes it a crime â€“ punishable by five years in jail â€“ for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to tell anyone that he or she has received the search warrant.” These rats know that they are rats.

It gets worse. “The government can now . . . break into your house . . . steal your checkbook, put an electronic bug under your kitchen table, and make it look like it was a house burglary. It can even leave and not tell you or the local police what has happened.”

Dub-Yuh is recognized as the tyrant and dunce that he was: “President Bush does not recognize the constitutional limitations imposed on his office. His only concern is with victory over â€˜the enemy,â€™ whoever that may be. ”

So what can be done? Among Judge Napolitanoâ€™s common sense recommendations are abolition of the income tax (“the Sixteenth Amendment . . . should be abolished outright”); same for the Seventeenth Amendment which called for the direct election of U.S. senators and a return to the system of appointing them by state legislatures; and the recognition that the federal government will never check its own power. “Thus, I would clarify the right of the states to secede from the Union,” writes the judge from New Jersey, “losing all the benefits that come from membership [in the union], but regaining all the freedom membership has taken away.

The U.S. government is now characterized by dictatorial power, abuse of every kind of personal liberty, confiscatory taxation, economic fascism, dangerous militarism, and imperialism. Every American who is concerned about this Nazification of the American government needs to own a copy of The Constitution in Exile.

30 thoughts on “The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution”

But what impresses me most about the article (or book review) is the recognition by the author of what the “conservative” Hannitys of the world are in actuality. Besides being a neocon (or a right-liberal) this goofball, Sean Hannity, actually believes that there are enough real republicans in the U.S. Senate to put together a viable filibuster. Which is so far from the case that I have to wonder about his level of intelligence. Hannity is the same “conservative” pundit who spent weeks wringing his hands over Arlen Specter’s defection to the democrat party. On the other hand, Republican Senate leaders claimed to be shocked, SHOCKED by Specter’s defection. What a bunch of idiots!

The Hannity, Limbaugh, Medved, O’Rielly crowd are no better then the people they chastise, they have no problem ignoring the abuse of rights that republicans inflict on the country, yet they point fingers at the Dems as the evil ones.. this game will continue until we the people have said enough! and either create a third party to rally behind, or we clean house in the Republican party and return it to conservative Ideals..

As for the Judge, I’m not sure how much of what he says is conviction or just an attempt to patronize disgruntled conservatives. goading the people into continuing the same game.

Love Judge Napolitano long time but I have to disagree with his assertions concerning the 16th Amendment. If we repealed the Amendment tomorrow, the federal government would retain the constitutional authority to impose every tax it presently imposes.

The controversy that resulted in the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment had nothing to do with the federal governmentâ€™s constitutional power to impose so-called â€œincome taxes.â€ The real issue was a class of tax controversyâ€•not a power to tax controversy.

The Constitution divides ALL taxes into two classes: direct and indirect. It should be noted that the word â€œindirectâ€ does not appear in the Constitution but was referenced in the Federal (Constitutional) Convention of 1787 as the opposite of direct taxes. The word income, as applied to taxation under the Constitution, is simply a name for a type of tax. Income taxes are not a class of tax recognized by the Constitution. The Founders would have classified an income tax as a subset of either a direct or indirect tax.

Pursuant to the Constitution, direct taxes are required to be levied according to the rule of apportionment while indirect taxes are required to be levied according to the rule of uniformity. Apportionment means that anytime Congress wants to impose a direct tax, it is required to apportion the tax among the individual States based on population. For example, letâ€™s say in 1790, two years after ratification of the Constitution, Congress prepared a budget and decided to impose a direct tax to raise the needed revenue. And, based on the census, New York had 30% of the population of the United States. Under the rule of apportionment, New York would have been responsible for 30% of the tax.

Direct taxes are inherently unfair because one State, with ten percent of the population, might be one of the richest States while another State, with the same percentage of the population, might be one of the poorest. Yet, under the direct tax formula imposed by the Constitution, both States would be required to pay the same amount. The Founders feared the use of direct taxes so they created a system to discourage their use.

The only rule for indirect taxes is they must be uniform. If, for example, Congress had imposed an indirect tax on rum manufacturers in 1795, the rate had to be same in all 13 United States irrespective of their population.

Eighteen years before the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, a legal controversy arose concerning a federal income tax statute. In 1895, the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional, the federal Income Tax Act of 1894. The Court concluded the tax imposed by the Act on â€œrents or income of real estateâ€ was not significantly distinct from a tax on the property itself. Therefore, the Court classified the tax as a direct tax requiring apportionment among the several States.

Following this ruling, even though the Court did not hold that all income taxes were direct taxes, there was uncertainty as to whether income taxes fell in the class of direct or indirect taxes. As a result, Congress sought to remove all doubt by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment states:

â€œThe Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.â€

Immediately after the Amendment was ratified in 1913, Congress enacted another income tax. The new law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional. In 1916, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the scope of the Amendment. A Congressional Research Service Report in 1980 explained the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment in two sentences:

â€œThe Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitutionâ€¦ Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.â€

As stated by CRS, the Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax. It also did not repeal the existing clauses. Indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity and direct taxes were still required to be apportioned among the several States.

The Sixteenth Amendment simply settled the class of tax controversy for the taxes known as â€œincome taxesâ€ and the constitutional rule for imposing them; it did not grant Congress any new taxing power or make so-called income taxes legal.

If the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any new taxing power or modify its existing power, then what did the Amendment accomplish? Since the Amendment states income taxes are not subject to the rule apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment, by its wording, restricted income taxes to the class of indirect taxes.

The CRS Report referenced above made the following statement concerning the Supreme Courtâ€™s decisions on the nature of the federal income tax:

â€œTherefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.â€

Source for this quote: page 6 of the 1980 CRS Report.

On March 27, 1943, an analysis of the federal income tax was published in the Congressional Record. This compilation of information was written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department (one of the guys who wrote the tax laws) and entitled: â€œThe Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for Determining its Amount.â€ This commentary stated, in part:

â€œThe income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

The so-called federal income tax is an indirect excise tax just like the special income or excise tax called â€œSocial Security.â€ Neither tax is a tax on income. Both taxes are taxes measured by income based on the exercise of some activity or privilege.

The million dollar question is: what is the activity or privilege being taxed under the guise of an income tax and where is the statute that imposes liability for this secret indirect excise tax?

That was an interesting write-up concerning the income tax. I believe I have a better question:

If the states believe the federal government is breaking the rules, then why do the states keep resorting to the rules to defeat this usurpation? It seems to me the states ought to be free to dabble in the same form of lawlessness as they see fit.

A quick follow-up to explain the abstract in more concrete terms by way of analogy.

Let’s say you and I agree that you will pay me $5,000, and I will do some remodeling work for you.

When I come to your place on the third day, you tell me, “I’ve hit some hard times and will not be able to pay you.” Does anyone think I should still have to keep working and finish the job?

There is a concept in the law that holds a material breach of contract by one party excuses performance by the other party.

So, if the federal government is breaching the Constitution (which was, in essence, an agreement to submission to being governed under a specific set of rules), then, why do the states feel any need to continue to perform under it? Why should any of the provisions of the contract continue to bind the states? Why do the states feel compelled to continuously point out the language in the contract as a basis for resisting?

You see…. The “contract” has long since been breached. There is no point in feeling that we need to continue abiding by it. The only reason we do is, IMO, out of fear and uncertainty.

Just as, in the example above, your breach excuses me so that I can go pursue a livelihood elsewhere, I would think the states are similarly excused and ought to be able to do the same.

Why throw away a winning hand. The justification for the states to become as lawless as the Feds just invites state government anarchy and will gain no support from the state legislators who are currently working on the sovereignty issues.

We already have lawful justification for our sovereignty “rebellion”, the 10th Amendment. It is the recognized basis of justification to back off the Feds, it is winner if we just keep pushing it.

We, who are actively and seriously working in our respective states, would lose all credibility and support to propose such a â€œoff the wallâ€ concept at this time.

Perhaps at a later date if we lose, and everything goes down the tubes, we could consider such options, “BUT NOT NOW”.

Pete, IMO, none of this goes anywhere of real significance without starving the feds of money. Sure, some measures might fizzle, like Real ID, but I would suggest that anyone desiring a true retreat to Constitutionalism will not see that occur without a massive downsize of the feds. That will not happen by public outcry. They will have to be starved.

It is possible a failing economy can accomplish that without the need for the states to intervene.

DiLorenzo’s books appears to be a very accurate depiction and description of natural law, as expressed by our founders, and as revealed by our history. Unfortunately, the Reconstruction period after the “Civil War” completely trampled and destroyed the concepts of federalism, state sovereignty, limited federal government and secession, evidenced by the draconian and tyrannical principles established in the 16th and 17th amendment.

In my humble opinion, based upon the study of history and our current geo-political mess, short of secession, the States MUST repeal the 16th and 17th amendments to regain what we have lost over the past 100 years.

Bob Greenslade is a socialist,communist call him what you will he and people of his ilk will be the down fall of the greatest country in the world. I firmly believe in the right of free speech but Mr greenslade is just WRONG and his time will come

Edwin Vieira says that economic collapse was foreseen long ago by the politicians and money-power of the establishment and that Homeland Security was put in place to make sure they remain in power during a time of probable civil unrest. In other words, their misrule and illegal conduct cannot be allowed to be cause for removing them from power. Police State tactics will be used to maintain order and the political status quo. There is hope however. The fact that 37 States have Sovereignty Resolutions before them suggests a slight hope that one or more might actually get up the courage and determination to actually do something remarkable; might actually swim against the current; might actually dare to challenge in a real way the tyranny of a lawless federal power. Gosh, they might even secede!

Napolitano is moving along the right track but it will take more than he is offering to change our out of control government. Being from Texas, I feel, as do many of my brethren, the urge to lead this charge but our legislature is slowly but surely being infiltrated by the same spineless, corrupt thieves that are destroying Washington DC. The dumbing down of Texans as to their heritage is quickly becoming obvious. I hope we can right the ship before we all go under.

It appears, from his comment, that Wayne is a victim of the public school system because he does want to be confused with some facts. I was attempting to show that the IRS and members of Congress have lied to the American people about the effect of the 16th Amendment and the nature of the income tax. I never endorsed the tax. The Feds have pulled off one of the biggest bait and switch tricks in the history of the nation. While they have us focused on the 16th Amendment, they are stealing our money through a different provision of the Constitution. The big 16th Amendment lie allows them keep the real tax being imposed on us out of sight and out of the debate.

And how do people like Wayne respond to attempts to expose scams like this with some documented facts-they attack the people who put the facts on the table. Hey Wayne-in the words of H.L. Menchen:

“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”

An unconstitutional law is no law – it is void ab initio – it is a mere usurpation and deserves to be treated as such (e.g., The Federalist Papers, No. 33, 7th para, A. Hamilton).

Where did We, as individuals, and the States, get the idea that we have any obligation to obey unconstitutional laws?

Think not that the judges were intended to be the final arbiters of what is constitutional! Judges are merely our employees, and many of them should be fired for falling down on the job. WE the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” (The Federalist Papers, No. 16 10th para, Hamilton), not judges!

A few things to consider while people are toying around with the Idea of refusing to recognize governments obvious intrusions..

Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas Sept. 24 to enforce the supreme court’s order on desegregation. Now, forget for a moment the issue.. and think about the action…

I can see the same thing happening in today’s world when push comes to shove. you take a hot issue like taxes, push for confiscation on a federal level, and I would bet dimes to doughnuts federal troops would be sent to the state capital of any given state, there to enforce the 16th amendment.. it is when all cameras are focused on this type of stand off, an unarmed group of citizens blocking the federal powers from imposing their will.. that a Tiananmen Square stand off would either kill the movement, or launch it nationwide..This is the type of resistance against federal intrusion that will catch fire…
Take Montana, if they lose the Battle to manufacture their own firearms and it gets to the point of federal enforcement, will Americans come to Montana’s side?.. would Montana even have the guts to stand if a verdict against it’s rights are handed down? It is hot button topics like Taxes and Guns that have the ability to make or break a movement back to the Constitution…But it takes the backing of a State to make your case. jails are full of people who are labeled extremists…It is much harder to label an entire state.

I believed and disagreed with you who say that “The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution”. It is not American Citizens , it is not Patriots Citizens , it is not any Freedom Fighters nor Militants nor any Military Branches Bases, IT IS NOT GOD WHO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY CONSTITUTION, NONE OF US !!!!!.
YOU BETTER THINK TWICE AS I KNEW YOU ARE MEMBERS AND FAVORS FOR OBAMA AND HIS GANGSTERS AND LIBERAL DEMOCRATS -NUMBER ONE PERSON IS SENATOR EDWARDS KENNEDY VERY POWERFUL AND BAD INFLUENCES TO HIS GANGS LIKE VP BIDEN, SEN KERRY, SEN.REID, NANCY PELOSI, BARNEY, OTHERS LIBERAL CONGRESS MEN ARE THE BLAME FOR THAT AND WANTED TO DESTROY AMERICAN FOR MANY MANY YEARS AGO TO NOW !!. YOU ARE ONE OF THEM, MAN ! DON’T FEEL THAT YOU ARE NOT QUILTY BUT YOU ALREADY SHOWED TODAY !.
WE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS, PATRIOT CITIZENS AND OTHERS LIKE MILITANTS AND WE SUPPORT OUR “GOD’S PROMISED LAND IN AMERICA AND WE WILLING TO FIGHT AND SAVE OUR AMERICA’S PROMISED LAND FOR ANY PRICE TO WIPE YOU ALL OUT OF OUR COUNTRY AT ONCE VERY SOON OR ANYTIME TODAY SO SO . WE ALREADY FED UP WITH YOU STUPID GUYS AND MEMBERS OF COMMUNISTS FOR LONG LONG TIME, I KNOW THAT, DON’T EVER TRY TO FOOL WITH US WE ALREADY READY TO FIGHT AGAINST YOU AND SAVE GOD’S LAND , PERIOD !!. JUST WARNING YOU NOW ANY TIME. !!!.

That is precisely correct, Larry. That is why, to me, it would greatly enhance the 10th movement if the states would include provisions in their resolutions that showed support for other, named states.

I would love to see language along the lines of “an unauthorized agression against them shall be considered an unauthorized aggression against us.”

There comes a point when it should not be every state for themselves seeking independence. They shold, IMO, align and announce their alignment. No new central government needed. Just a commitment of friendship and support.

Publius, thanks for the nice comment. I want to clarify that what I am saying might be slightly different.

I am saying that once the contract is materially breached, you don’t have to just ignore the breached term. You have the right to demand compliance, and if it cannot be obtaiend, you have the right to ignore the whole contract.

If I agree to install cabinets and a countertop in your house for $5,000, and you tell me you aren’t going to pay, you’ll get neither of them from me.

Nancy,
Chances are none that one state would stand alone. The road to Sucession is long and very predictable.. giving plenty of time for other States to decide their own fate. But The out come of succession is that yes, sovereignty is recognized, an Army is raised and a currency is instituted .Sucession is the ultimate slap in the face of a form of government.. look at the old soviet Satellite states.

I’ll definitely read the book but it in summary is quite descriptive of the state we face now and how we got there is not as important as how we get back. I suspect that any civil unrest will do so much harm to the economy at this point that it will merely spark a greater movement to restore the constitution not the government. It hinges on the military and what side they take not what DHS does. There will be defections in each but which will retain the power and which will be joined by the masses to set the rule of law back on its rightful course is not so much a guess as one might think. Reading the individual web pages of soldiers who post them one get the distinct impression they have already decided what to do and it isn’t to follow the powers that be. There are also many veterans who will stand united against a move against the people under the guise of restoring power to the government.

In any case this nation will be either returned to legitimacy in a very short time or the anarchy will be far greater than any force available to the government could possibly triumph over. It will after all be a revolt against the ruling class not so much between the people.

I find it amusing that someone who so slavishly fawns over the good Judge with one breath, does his damndest to diss the conservatives and libertarians who, by virtue of their outspokenness and the fact they have the widest television viewing audience in the country, are in a position to get the word out about the Judge’s work with his next.

While I agree the Judge has written a book that should be required reading, this review smacks of the sour grapes so typical of career academics.

Good to hear good news.
As a radical conservative, I have been advocating removal/restructuring for some time now.
The music to my ears is knowing an official agrees.
An interesting thing about all this is that through the sovereignty the relationship is similar to bankruptcy. Their ‘debt’ is exclusively theirs!
The other part of this is to use common law, as a definition of state law. Seems we fall under maritime law when we pass their ‘bar’ when appearing in their court system. Admiralty is one thing, but I can’t recognise being put on a boat. Then there is the minor problem of being subject to British Naval law. Not a good deal no matter how it comes at one…
And yes, I too will get a copy.
Keep up the good work.

Jeff Matthews, I agree the State governments need to reach out to each other for support, so that they all know whatâ€™s going to happen before any one of us does it, and all of them can uniformly condemn federal actions and take like wise measures in their own states forcing the feds to divide their resources, and prove this is no isolated thing to the doubtlessly pro federal government media.

Governors need to be making a lot of noise in support of The States constitutional rights as being inherit necessary for the maintenance of freedom of their own state as much as the state now besieged by the Federal government. They need to uses the â€œcrisisâ€ as a microphone, to speak the needed words of liberty and Constitutionalism. An attack on the rights on one state must be regarded as inherently an attack on the rights of ALL States.

If the feds can hit them they can do the same to anyone of us, if we donâ€™t stand with them, we will be next.

Look, I’m a plain ole citizen who knows this great country of ours is in dire need of a “fix” – and fast. So basically, as I read between the lines, you great Americans are telling me to continue hoarding ammo.